16 comments:

OK, here's my comment. Um, dude...you are coming across as a bit of troll here. I don't know the extant of your feud with this guy. But he was just posting a video about a cocktail. Why bring guns into it? Aren't they two totally different topics?

I'm just saying that on the gun issue, I'm pro-cocktail. Isn't booze something both sides can agree on? :)

PS - Like I said, I don't know the nature of your online relationship with this guy. Maybe this comment was warranted. Just saying how it looks from the outside, is all.

B.E. Earl, one of this blog's author's more . . . peculiar positions (and believe me, he has taken a bunch of them) is that any use of alcohol, or any other mood-altering substance, should be a disqualifier for gun ownership.

I don't know who he expects to enforce all the gun laws he whines for, since it would be hard to field much of a police force, if cops could never drink.

Mike, you have always told us that we stand a better chance of being struck by a meteorite than need to defend ourselves with a weapon. But here you are saying the situation is so likely that no gun owner should ever enjoy a drink for risk of being attacked while intoxicated. I know, you are trying to make a point to the person who says “you never know when…”, but since YOU personally believe the likelihood is so small, I could only conclude that you are being silly. You are just trying to make a point to Weer’d by using the “you never know when” argument when it suits you, and you’re not at all serious. Am I correct?

The bottom line is that if someone chooses to have a few drinks at home, thus admittedly impairing her ability to respond to an attack, that's her risk, her prerogative, and her business--it sure as hell ain't any of Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader's business.

Guns and alcohol don't mix, period. The stronger the alcohol and the more the guns the worse it is. It doesn't only take that rarest of all situations, the true DGU moment, for someone who's drinking to make a mistake with the gun.

Weer'd is a guy who carries a gun everywhere he goes and keeps weapons at the ready when home, just in case. Drinking the kinds of drinks he pictured in the video does not mix with his chosen gun lifestyle. We're not talking about a beer or two, or a glass of white wine. Those martinis or vespas or whatever, are powerful stuff.

Have you mentioned that to the government you so passionately worship, that in its wisdom, tasked the same agency with regulating both?

Do you have some indication that Weer'd doesn't put the guns away before he breaks out the cocktails--thus rendering your entire silly "argument" moot?

Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:

Drinking the kinds of drinks he pictured in the video does not mix with his chosen gun lifestyle. We're not talking about a beer or two, or a glass of white wine. Those martinis or vespas or whatever, are powerful stuff.

Do you know that he doesn't limit himself to one--perhaps a small one? Can you, to sum up, provide any reason for anyone to believe that this is anything more than a silly, bitchy, personal attack (and also a contemptible intrusion into someone else's life)?

Weer'd publishes a gun blog. Posting articles and videos about martini drinking, which he's done a few times that I know of, is messed up, in my opinion.

You can call it a personal attack if you like, but I don't really think it is. The glamorizing of drinking and the glamorizing of gun ownership do not go together. But they do in Weer'd's World, which brings up very interesting questions.

Do gun owners support other gun owners regardless of what they do or say? Do they do this right up till the time the stupid one or the drunk one does something really bad, then they write him off as irresponsible or criminal? Is that how it works?

I say promoting alcohol consumption on a gun blog is already irresponsible. Can I have an amen from the pro-gun camp, even one?

Do gun owners support other gun owners regardless of what they do or say? Do they do this right up till the time the stupid one or the drunk one does something really bad, then they write him off as irresponsible or criminal? Is that how it works?

I don't know about "regardless of what they do or say"--I'll stand up for anyone (gun owner or not) whose actions violate no one's rights, and condemn anyone (gun owner or not) whose actions do violate someone's rights.

Do we (gun rights advocates) tend to stand up for someone who has done nothing to harm anyone, but at the same time expect them to man up and accept responsibility for the consequences of any stupid, irresponsible, or evil acts, if and when they do commit any such acts?

Yep, I suppose we do.

Why is that wrong, again?

As an aside, I have never seen Weer'd promote use of firearms while under the influence of any mood altering substance, and I would find it objectionable if I did see him promoting such irresponsible behavior.